SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 2636

AIR 2010 Mad 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. Nagamuthu, J.
Dr. Vijay Mallya and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. No. 11781 of 1999
Decided On: 02.07.2010

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Raghul Balaji, Adv. for Mohan Parasaran, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Velayutham Pitchaya, SCGSC, R. Achuthan, T. Poornam, Advs. and S. Sivashanmugam, Govt. Adv.

The Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy and does not derogate from other laws.

Headnote:

Reserve Bank of India Act - Consumer Protection - Section 45QA, Section 58-A of the Companies Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, Section 58-A of the Companies Act, and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. The court highlighted the overriding effect of Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act over inconsistent provisions of other laws, and the additional remedy provided by the Consumer Protection Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, former executives of a company, sought relief against proceedings initiated by depositors under the Consumer Protection Act. They argued that the Company Law Board's directions under Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act should override the Consumer Protection Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition due to non-impleading of necessary parties and lack of merit. It emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy and does not derogate from other laws. The court also noted that the petitioners had not availed other legal remedies available to them.

Issues: Non-impleading of necessary parties, jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, and the availability of legal remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: The Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy and does not derogate from other laws. The court emphasized the importance of availing legal remedies and the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

ORDER

S. Nagamuthu, J.

1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1999. Previously, the first Petitioner was the Chairman of a Multi-National Company known as "U.B. Group" and the other Petitioners were the Executives/Employees of the U.B. Group of Companies. In the year 1982, a Company called "Krest Development and Leasing Limited" was incorporated and registered before the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. The U.P. Group of Companies, after following the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, acquired controlling interest in Krest Development and Leasing Limited and therefore, the said Company was renamed as "McDowell Crest Finance Limited" (fourth Respondent herein).

2. While so, according to the first Petitioner, because of his other pre-occupations in other businesses of U.B. Group and as he was also a non-resident Indian, he ceased to be the Director of the said Company even as early as on 20-3-1997 following the prescribed and requisite statutory formalities as laid down under the Companies Act. Similarly, according to the other Petitioners, they had also resigned as Directors in the fourth Respondent-Company by folllowing the prescribed statutory formalities. It is further alleged that the fact of resignation of the Petitioners have become effective and the same was also made known to all. Subsequently, the right to control and management of this company had accordingly vested with the group called "Rayudu Group" and the name of the fourth Respondent-Company was changed as "M/s. Krest Finlease Limited", it is contended.

3. While so, some complaints were filed by the depositors before the Company Law Board alleging that the deposits received from them by the said Company were not repaid to them. According to the Petitioners, in exercise of the power under Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, the Company Law Board has issued certain directions in respect of repayment of deposits to the depositors. While so, many other depositors, who were not parties before the Company Law Board started filing complaints before various Consumer Redressal Forums under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming repayment of deposits with interest and damages. According to Petitioners, several orders were passed against the Petitioners and the fourth Respondent-Company by the Consumer Forums and all such orders were ex parte orders. Based on the said ex parte orders, now execution proceedings have been initiated and it is stated that coercive steps, like even arrest, are also likely to be resorted to by the Consumer Forums at the instance of the beneficiaries of the orders passed by the Consumer Forums. In those circumstances, the Petitioners have come up with this writ petition seeking the following relief:

Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of declaration, declaring that the provisions of Chapter IIIB and Section 45QA(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act read with Section 58-A of the Companies Act and the order passed by the Company Law Board dated 1-12-1998 has overriding effect over all other laws including the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and consequently direct the Respondents to adhere and implement the orders passed by Company Law Board and also refrain from taking any action, either civil or criminal or otherwise against the Petitioners who are not in charge of the affairs and management of fourth Respondent as found by Company Law Board.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that when there are orders passed under Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act by the Company Law Board in respect of repayment of deposits to the depositors, simultaneously, there cannot be any parallel proceedings before the Consumer Forums. He would further point out that when the Company Law Board has directed the fourth Respondent-Company to repay the depositors in instalments, it is far beyond
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top